http://gizmodo.com/5475668/laptop+spying-school-district-superintendent-covers-ass-by-claiming-security-feature
You have any links about him being a 'troubled student' ? I've seen nothing. This link from gizmodo has a letter from the Supe about how they are removing the security feature and this statement from the letter: * This feature was only used for the narrow purpose of locating a lost, stolen or missing laptop. The District never activated the security feature for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever.* I'm not sure what would cause him to write this letter in which he clearly lies about the use of the camera since it was used in this case to catch a student taking and selling drugs...ooops..I mean eating candy. When the story keeps changing, when these guys in charge move the goal posts around I think it makes it clear who is at fault. I don't think for a second this guy is involved in kiddie porn, but I think due to this policy it was a by-product or was bound to be at some point. This is a man who made several very stupid decisions and won't own up to it. On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 7:23 PM, John Duncan Yoyo <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Art Clemons <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 03/06/2010 08:27 PM, mike wrote: > > > So the only crime so far is they should have told the boys and girls > they > > > would be watched remotely in their bedrooms? Maybe they failed to make > > it > > > clear because any sensible parent doesn't want their kids spied on by > > sick > > > perverts. > > > > The situation is more complicated than you're making it out to be. The > > software in question was activated because the laptop was not supposed > > to be removed from the school by the student since the parents had not > > given permission or paid a $55 fee for insurance for said laptop. The > > laptop thus was missing or stolen as far as school records were > > concerned. If a thief had actually had the laptop, would you be as > > concerned about the privacy of the thief? I suspect not. In some > > jurisdictions, the student could or would be prosecuted for theft in > > these circumstances. This situation is more confused than portrayed. > > > > The original plaintiff may not be the one that pulls this house of cards > down on the school board. The kid in question has a troubled history but > the other cases of camera activation are still likely to blow up in the > face > of the district. > > If any pictures of an underage child were taken let alone viewed they are > likely open to prosecution for kiddie porn. This happened in Pennsylvania > where they prosecuted a teenage girl for taking pictures of herself and > emailing them to her boyfriend. > > -- > John Duncan Yoyo > -------------------------------o) > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
